ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Fwd: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - REPLY NEEDED!

  • To: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Fwd: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - REPLY NEEDED!
  • From: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 03:08:57 +0000

Dear all,
Please find Jennifer's consent below.
Best. Lars

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jennifer Chung" <jen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 20 Jun 2015 20:10:00 GMT-3
To: "'Lars Hoffmann'" 
Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - 

Dear Lars,

Since I still haven't received the email from the mailing list - might be a 
subscription problem?  I would like to record my consent to the change 
suggested in your email below (pasted in its entirety).

Also in the case that this does not make it to the mailing list (subscription 
problem?) please forward my response to the list.  Thank you!

Best Regards,

Jennifer Chung, Policy & Organisational Relations
DotAsia Organisation<http://www.dot.asia/>, From.Asia / For.Asia
E-mail: jen@xxxxxxxx<mailto:jen@xxxxxxxx>
Skype: jennifer.r.chung

Dear all,
Please all read this careful and try to reply on list as soon as possible.
It has come to our attention that there was an important term mistakenly
used in Recommendation #4 of our Final Report
The Recommendation reads currently:
Recommendation #4 The Working Group recommends that, regardless of the
language(s)/script(s) used, it is assured that the data fields are
consistent to standards in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA),
relevant L Policy, Additional Whois Information Policy (AWIP) and any other
applicable polices. Entered contact information data are verified, in
accordance with the aforementioned Policies and Agreements and the
language/script used must be easily identifiable.
Level of consensus: Full Consensus
The term OEverified^1 in the second sentence of the recommendation has legal
implications and would change significantly the contractual obligations of
the Contracted Parties. As the substance of the Final Report on that
particular issue makes it clear that "validation" was intended to be used
instead of ^3verification^2. Both  co-Chairs agree that this is a clerical
mistake as the Group meant to use the term OEvalidate^1 not OEverifiy^1 and it
should be changed accordingly.
With your consent we would like change the working to reflect the actual
meaning of what the Group meant to recommend. In order to prevent delaying
the GNSO Council^1s vote on our Final Report, this would have to happen as
soon as possible so that the Motion to adopt can be changed accordingly and
in time for Wednesday^1s Council discussion and vote.
Many thanks and best wishes,

Attachment: image003.jpg
Description: image003.jpg

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy